^oV^ 



= (K 










%,«^ :m^- \/ .-^fe'- "^..^^ .'M^ . . 






- ^ifii^ ° c,^ "^n, ° WWW ' ^ <^ 



■v 


















<> 



« o , <? 







^ -^ ^CTiS^*" .v>"^ 








-^ -.^^.^^.^ ^^^"^^ ^^^K^^ ^-^ V 









4 o^ 







' 1 <x~ 




.-\ 




V *'-' ^0- 












"^ov^ 




-^ 



,i- 




0^ ..-.«. ^a ■ .^^ 




•: -^^.^ 



.r 



<0 O 






"ol 



'^ .^(^^,:^yl*o ' <■&. ^. tW((C^* "^ 



-^0 



f" 



The Organization of City 
School Systems 



By THOMAS E. FINEGAN M.A. Pd.D. LL.D. 
Third Assistant Commissioner of Education 



An address delivered before the Council of School 
Superintendents of the State of New York at 
Albany, October 14, 1912 



STATE OF NEW YORK 

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 

1912 

Gi6r-Ni2-30oo (7-1476) 



,^ 



Pv 



v^^^ 



^\, 




THE ORGANIZATION OF CITY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 

Mr President and Gentlemen: 

The purpose of this paper is to express in general terms 
the conclusions reached after an experience of twenty 
years in deaUng with many phases of the subject and also 
to express what is commonly acknowledged by expert 
authority in school administration to be the fundamental 
principles on which all laws which are to govern the 
public schools of a city should be enacted. Until a 
permanent policy shall be established in relation to the 
organization of the machinery for the operation of the 
public schools in the several cities of the State and upon 
fundamental principles consonant with the general policy 
of the State upon public education, and until these prin- 
ciples are well understood by teachers, superintendents 
and officers who bear official relation to the schools, and 
until such fundamental principles are generally recognized 
by municipal authorities, political parties and influential 
citizens, this subject is one which should receive the 
consideration not only of organizations of school workers 
like yours in session here tonight but of all citizens who 
have a patriotic interest in the welfare of the State. 

The first law authorizing the establishment of public 
schools in this State was enacted in 1795. The permanent 
basis of a State system of public education was enacted 
in 1 812, or just one hundred years ago. In these early 
statutes the principle was written that all tax-supported 
schools and schools receiving State aid should be under 
State supervision, that the schools constituted a State 
system and that public officers should be chosen in the 
several localities to represent the State and to carry into 
effect the State's policy in relation to public education. 
This principle became fundamental to all educational 
enterprises in which the State is interested. It is founded 
upon the sound doctrine that the welfare of the State 
depends upon a general dissemination of education in all 
sections and for the benefit of all citizens and that, where 
the funds of the State go, the authority, supervision and 
control of the State must follow. 



Our forefathers acted wisely at the close of the Revo- 
lutionary War, when they were deliberating upon the 
powers and functions of the national government, and 
decided to regard public education as one of the questions 
to be included in the domestic affairs of the several states. 
They did not plan a system of education under the control 
and direction of the national governmient on the plans 
which prevail in European countries. The finances of 
the young republic would not permit it to undertake an 
enterprise of such broad scope and such possibilities of 
expenditures as a national system of public instruction 
involved. They undoubtedly acted in accordance with 
the democratic spirit of their day in leaving to each state 
the authority to determine the solution of a question so 
vital to the liberties of the people as public education. 

From the very beginning of our national life, therefore, 
the American plan of public education has been a state 
system in the several states based upon such ideas as 
the intellectual attainments, the wealth, the commercial 
needs and prosperity and the sentiment of the people 
of each state vv^ould support. From the early act of 1795 
to the present time, our State has never regarded public 
education as the business of a district, village, town or 
city, but during this entire period has assumed the general 
direction and control of all its educational activities. In 
short, the theory of our system of public instruction has 
always been that public schools are State institutions and 
not local institutions, and that the schools established in 
a city or elsewhere are not local schools but are a part of 
the entire State school system. This theory has been 
universally sustained by the decisions of our courts and 
by the Legislature. The leading case upon this point is 
People ex rel. v. Bennett (54 Barbour 480) in which it was 
held that the members of the board of education of 
Saratoga Springs and the trustees of school districts 
within that village were neither town nor village officers 
but independent public or State officers with such powers 
and duties as the statutes conferred upon them. 

The Court of Appeals in Gunnison v. Board of Education 
of the City of New York ( 1 76 N. Y. 11) held as follows : 

It is apparent from the general drift of the argument that the learned counsel for 
the defendants is of the opinion that the employment of teachers in the public schools 



and the general conduct and management of the schools is a city function in the same 
sense that it is in the case of the care of the streets or the employment of the police 
and the payment of their salaries and compensation; but that view of the relation 
of the city to public education, if entertained, is an obvious mistake. . . . All 
this results from the settled policy of the State from an early date to divorce the 
business of public education from all other municipal interests or business and to 
take charge of it as a peculiar and separate function through agencies of its own 
selection and immediately subject and responsive to its own control. 

In 1876, Mr James N. Gerard, an inspector of schools 
in the city of New York, was elected to the State Senate. 
His seat in that body was contested by his opponent 
upon the ground that the Constitution provided that a 
municipal officer was not eligible to election to the Legis- 
lature. The Senate adopted a report to the effect that a 
city inspector of schools was not a municipal officer and 
that Mr Gerard was therefore eligible to the office of 
senator. 

In 1 88 1, the present State Commissioner of Education 
was a member of the board of education of the city of 
Albany. He was elected to the Assembly. His seat 
was also contested upon the same ground that the seat 
of Senator Gerard was contested. The report of the 
committee on contested seats, which was an exhaustive 
treatment of the question and to the effect that a member 
of a board of education was not a municipal officer, was 
unanimously adopted. 

Justice Gaynor (now mayor of New York) in the case 
of Redinour v. The Brooklyn Board of Education (15 
Misc. 148), referring to the board of education said, 

It is not a part of the corporation of the city of Brooklyn, but is itself a local school 
corporation, like every board of school district trustees throughout the State and is 
like every such board an integral part of the general school system of the State. It 
is a State and not a city agency, doing State and not city work and functions. Educa- 
tion is not a city, village, county or town business. It is a matter belonging to the 
State government. From its comprehensive foundation by chapter 75 of the Laws 
of 1795, down to the recent codification of our school laws, our State system of educa- 
tion has remained a consistent whole. The present board of education of the city 
of Brooklyn is as distinctly a part of that whole as*any school district m the State. 

The following decisions of the courts of this State in 
several other cases and an opinion of the Attorney 
General are cited in support of this same principle: 

Dannat v. Mayor, 6 Hun 88 
Follows V. Mayor, 8 Hun 484 
Ham V. Mayor, 70 N. Y. 459 
Matter of Harris, 58 Misc. 297 
People ex rel Walralts, 112 App. Div. 97 
Hutchinson v. Skinner, 21 Misc. 729 

Opinion of Attorney General O'Malley to State Civil Service Commission, April 
15, 1910 



lO 

One of the most pronounced cases in support of this 
principle is Hutchinson v. Skinner (21 Misc. 729), gener- 
ally known as the Watervliet case. In this case, a 
bipartisan board of education was unable to agree upon 
the appointment of teachers at the beginning of the 
school year. Up to October 4th, the schools had not 
been opened. The State Superintendent of Public 
Instruction in a proper proceeding before him, made an 
order appointing a temporary superintendent, a force of 
teachers, truant officers, and janitors and directing these 
officers to open and operate such schools at the expense 
of the city. An action was instituted in the Supreme 
Court to restrain the State Superintendent from enforcing 
or executing his order to open such schools and also 
enjoining the persons appointed as teachers etc. from 
discharging their duties. The Court held that the State 
Superintendent acted, in the exercise of this unusual 
authority, Vv^holly within his legal rights and duties and 
denied the motion for such restraining orders. The 
opinion of the Court was based upon this same principle 
of State direction of educational affairs. 

This same principle has been sustained by the courts 
of other states whenever the question has been raised. 
Leading cases upon this point are 

State ex rel. v. Organ, 159 Ind. 123 
Peavey v. Talbot & Brothers, 39 Texas 335 

It was to protect and preserve this general policy 
pursued by the State in relation to public education for 
more than a century which led the people to adopt section 
I of article 9 of the State Constitution, which reads as 
follows : 

Section i Common schools. The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance 
and support of a system of free cortmon schools, wherein all the children of the State 
may be educated. 

That forty other states have incorporated similar pro- 
visions in their constitutions is evidence that public 
education is universally regarded in this country as a 
matter to be regulated by state policy. 

Extended reference has been made to the interpretation 
which the courts have placed upon the general policy of 
the State in relation to public education. It has appeared 
desirable to bring this information together for the use 



II 

of those interested in school administration. It has also 
seemed advisable to refer to these constitutional pro- 
visions and to state the substance of these judicial 
opinions and the determination of the same question by 
the Assembly and also by the Senate, so that it may not 
be said by anyone who has failed to investigate the his- 
torical development of our school system that the doc- 
trine, that public education is a state function, is a mere 
theory of students of education. This doctrine is the 
very basis upon which the public school system of the 
State was constructed more than a century ago and upon 
which it has ever since rested. An intelligent under- 
standing of this general policy of the State is therefore 
necessary in the proper construction of the legal basis of 
a local school act. 

What has been said about public education being a 
function of the State government should, however, not 
be misunderstood. It is not an argument for more 
centralized control of the schools or for withdrawing from 
localities any of the powers now exercised by them in 
relation to the management of the schools. On the 
contrary, the greatest freedom and authority possible in 
the execution of minimum standards set by the State 
should be conferred upon local school authorities. But 
what has been said in this respect is an argument intended 
to aid in the protection of the schools and of local school 
authorities from assaults which are constantly being 
made upon them by men and organizations having no 
official relation to the schools but desiring to use them 
for selfish and improper purposes. It is further intended 
to show the true relation which a city or other locality 
bears to the public school system and to point out the 
fact that, from the beginning of the State school system, 
the State has authorized the selection of officers in each 
city and all other sections of the State to represent 
jointly their respective localities and the State in the 
execution of the State's general plan of public education. 
As pointed out by the Court of Appeals in the Gunnison 
and other cases which have been cited, these officers have 
been independent of the municipalities in which they 
served and have been corporate agencies of the State's 
own creation. 



12 

While the management of the schools has therefore 
always been held to be a State function, it has always 
been the policy of the State, in the enactment of provis- 
sions for the operation of such schools, to utilize so far as 
possible the machinery already created in a community 
for the exercise of the powers necessary for the mainte- 
nance of local government. This may be done as a 
matter of economy of administration or for serving such 
other conveniences or purposes as appear necessary. 
The management and control of the schools of a city and 
the work of such schools have always been held to be 
entirely independent of the usual municipal affairs which 
are incident to the government of a city whenever the 
issue has been raised before a competent tribunal for 
determination. 

A clear illustration of this principle in school adminis- 
tration is afforded through the operations of the com- 
pulsory education law. This law provides that every 
child in the State between certain ages shall attend 
school for a specified period of each year. The general 
enforcement of this law is placed upon the chief educa- 
tional officer of the State. Provision is made, however, 
for the appointment by local authorities of truant officers 
in every city and town of the State, who work under the 
immediate direction of boards of education, trustees and 
superintendents. These officers are enforcing the law 
in their respective fields and are thus serving their own 
localities, but at the same time are executing a general 
policy pursued by the State in relation to the education 
of her future citizens. 

It has been stated by those who are not familiar with 
the general policy of the State in relation to public 
education that the fact that about nine-tenths of the 
expense of the maintenance of schools in a locality is 
paid by such locality and only one-tenth by the State, 
destroys the whole theory that the schools are not local 
but State institutions. If those making such statements 
possessed fuller knowledge of the history of the develop- 
ment and the operations of the school system they would 
realize the fallacy of their reasoning. It has been a part 
of the State's general poHcy to place the greatest portion 
of the expense of maintaining the schools in the populous 



13 

and wealthy sections of the State upon the locaKty. In 
the earUer methods of apportionment of State funds, 
the law required a district or city to raise by local taxation 
an amount equal to that allotted by the State. This has 
been a wise feature of the State system. It has not only 
interested the locality in public education, but has 
resulted in economy of administration. The local repre- 
sentatives of the school system have felt their responsi- 
bility to the people for all expenditures and for the 
items placed in the school budget. The State might 
well have assumed the entire expense of the support of 
the schools, had it not been for these reasons. If the 
State had assumed this expense, the amount paid by 
the several cities into the State treasury for the main- 
tenance of the school system would have been greater 
than the amount each of such cities now raises by local 
taxation for the support of schools in their respective 
localities. 

The law controlling the local government of .the school 
systems of the several cities of the State is quite generally 
incorporated in the charters which define the municipal 
powers and duties of such cities. This is fundamentally 
wrong and is not productive of sound school administra- 
tion. This custom of including in a city charter the law 
relating to the local management of schools has often 
resulted in regarding the schools as purely municipal 
affairs. It has also in m.any cases caused municipal 
officers and local political organizations to look upon the 
appointment of school positions as places to be controlled 
in the same manner as municipal positions are generally 
controlled. Moreover the mere fact that this law is in 
the charter presents the temptation to modify it for 
political or personal reasons whenever a city charter 
comes before the Legislature for general consideration. 
The political vicissitudes of our day lead to much legis- 
lation affecting the purely political side of our municipal 
affairs. The party in control of the Legislature will often 
m.odify the charters of the several cities so as to give such 
party a distinct political advantage in municipal affairs. 
V/hen the opposite party regains power, it makes similar 
changes in city charters and for the same purposes. This 
action invariably leads to legislation modifying the law 



14 

governing the schools and very often to the disadvantage 
of the school interests. 

This was notably true of the proposed legislation on 
this subject before the Legislature of 191 1. The chief 
illustration was the proposed charter of New York City. 
There was no demand from those charged with the 
responsibility of the supervision and management of the 
schools of that city for a material modification of the 
law relating to the local management of such schools. 
There was no demand from the people of the city for 
such modification of the law. The proposition to modify 
the law came from those charged with no official respon- 
sibility over the general management of the schools. 
The legislation suggested was opposed not only by the 
officials charged with the responsibility of the general 
direction and management of the schools but by leading 
citizens generally and by all prominent men throughout 
the country who were entitled to speak upon sound 
principles of school administration. The attention of 
school officers and the teaching staff of the city was for 
several months diverted from the work of the schools 
to the necessity of protecting their own interests and the 
interests of the schools. All this was bad and was a 
direct loss to the schools. 

New York was not the only city whose school inter- 
ests were affected in this way. General amendments 
to the articles relating to the schools in the charters 
of seven other cities were before the Legislature for 
consideration. 

All this embarrassment to the schools might be easily 
remedied. The law regulating the local control and 
management of the schools of the several cities of the 
State should be taken out of the city charters and should 
be incorporated in the Education Law. This action may 
be taken without confusion and without decreasing in 
the slightest the powers now conferred upon local super- 
intendents and boards of education. The Constitution 
classifies the cities of the State into three distinct classes 
as follows: First class, those having a population of 
175,000 or more. In this class are the cities of New York, 
Buffalo and Rochester. Second class, those having a 
population of 50,000 and less than 175,000. In this class 



15 

are Albany, Schenectady, Syracuse, Troy, Utica and 
Yonkers. Third class, the other forty cities of the State. 

The laws now governing the schools maintained in the 
cities of New York and Rochester are similar in many 
respects. There is no reason why a law could not be 
drawn which would be sufficient to meet the conditions 
in the cities of the first class and which would operate 
to the advantage of educational interests and to the 
satisfaction of the people and those charged with the 
management of the schools. It would undoubtedly be 
necessary to incorporate several sections especially to meet 
the unusual conditions in the great city of New York 
which do not prevail in other cities. 

The charter for cities of the second class at one time 
contained an article relating to the management of the 
schools. Many features of it were as bad as they could 
well be. It applied, however, only to two of these cities. 
The cities of this class are now governed by special acts. 
An article could easily be prepared in satisfactory form 
to meet the needs of all the cities of this class. 

A separate article applicable to all cities of the third 
class and meeting the educational conditions and neces- 
sities in such cities could also be prepared. Governor 
Dix in his message to the Legislature of 191 2 recom- 
mended a uniform charter for cities of the third class. 
Three bills covering the subject were introduced in the 
Legislature but none passed. This proposition is sure 
to have legislative consideration in the near future. 

The laws relating to the local management of schools 
should not be complicated. They should include only 
the fundamental principles necessary for efficient and 
sound management. The management of the schools 
of a large city involves great detail. Conditions change 
from year to year. The power to meet such local cir- 
cumstances and necessities should be vested in the 
authorities responsible for the local management of the 
schools. Some of the minor details now regulated by 
law could with propriety and adequate protection to the 
schools be placed in the hands of boards of education and 
superintendents, to be controlled by regulations pre- 
scribed by such authorities. This would simply be 
enlarging somewhat the powers which boards already 



i6 

exercise under the law. There is no force to the sugges- 
tion that conditions in the several cities of the State are 
so varying that separate laws are required for the proper 
regulation and management of the schools in such cities. 
The processes of levying and collecting taxes, of pur- 
chasing school supplies, employing teachers and janitors, 
promoting pupils, compelling attendance, acquiring title 
to property for school purposes, repairing and insuring 
buildings and the general professional management of 
schools could very properly be regulated by one law. 

It must be borne in mind that so long as the laws 
regulating the local management of the schools of the 
several cities of the State are continued as a part of the 
city charters, so long will the school systems of the cities 
be subject to the interference and confusion which cities 
generally have experienced through efforts which have 
been made to revise their charters during the last twenty- 
five years. 

With this general understanding of tRe historical 
development of our educational system and the general 
policy which the State has pursued in relation thereto 
as a guide, we may consider the essentials or the broad 
outlines of a school organization which should be included 
in the laws enacted for the government of the schools 
in the cities of the State. The experience of nearly every 
city in the country testifies to the advisability of placing 
■^^/ the general management of the schools under a board 
entirely independent of the municipal authority. The 
governing body of a city school system should be a board 
of education. This is the most vital point in the whole 
construction of a city school system. 

The first question to determine is the method of select- 
ing the members of a board. This determines in a large 
measure the type of men who will be chosen. The 
method which has given the best results throughout the 
country is by appointment by the mayor. Confirmation 
of the mayor's appointments by the common council or 
some other city body or board should not be required. 
The responsibility of such appointments should be 
definitely placed and, if the mayor is held responsible, 
better appointments will be made than if there is a 
division of this responsibility. 



17 

It must be conceded, however, that there is great force 
to the argument that a body charged with the perform- 
ance of a duty so vital to the happiness and prosperity 
of the people as the general management of the public 
schools should be chosen directly by the people themselves 
at popular, elections. There is little objection to this 
method if the election is fixed at a time separate from 
the general municipal election and is not involved in 
municipal questions. There is, however, a decided 
objection to selecting members of a board of education 
at a general election when municipal officers are chosen. 
Where this method is pursued men are more often chosen 
because of their availability to get votes and strengthen 
a city ticket than their fitness for the position and the 
service they are able to render the schools. Men who are 
the best qualified for service on a board of education will 
often decline to accept a nomination on a city ticket when 
they would have accepted an appointment from the 
mayor. Selections at a general election usually involve 
party nominations and therefore generally inject the 
partisan spirit into the administration of the schools. 
When a mayor is free to call upon the leading men in a 
city and request their service in behalf of the schools as 
a public duty, he is able to command the best talent 
available for such important service. 

The number of members which a board of education 
should contain is an important element. Large boards 
are not desirable nor should a board be so small that one 
or two persons may dominate its action. In large boards 
the work is usually transacted by committees and the 
deliberate judgment of the board as a whole does not 
generally prevail. The tendency throughout the country 
is toward small boards. There are more cities in the 
country having boards of seven members than any other 
number. For many reasons this number is suggested. 

The term of a member should not be too short. After 
a member has served one or two years, he should have 
gained a knowledge of the school system and its needs 
and should have acquired an interest in his official work 
that would enable him to give better service to the schools 
than a new member could ordinarily render. It is also 
desirable to provide against sudden changes in a majority 



of the members of a board. The majority of a board 
should be so constant that there may be ample oppor- 
tunity to give a fair trial to school policies which have 
been authorized after proper deliberation. On the other 
hand, changes in the personnel of a board should be made 
at sufficient intervals to afford the people of a city the 
opportunity to effect a change in school policies which 
may be desired and also to bring new blood into the 
board and inject new ideas into the management of the 
schools. These results may be accomplished with a board 
of seven members if the term of office is seven years and 
the term of one member expires annually. It may be 
said that, under this plan, it would take four years to 
change the control of a board and thus enable a com- 
munity to inaugurate a change in its school policy. It 
would be most unusual for an issue to arise between a 
board of education and the people of a community in 
which the action of the board would be unanimous! The 
unanimous action of a board of seven of the leading 
citizens of a community, reached with due deliberation, 
is entitled to respectful consideration and, if such an 
issue should arise, it would be well for the interests of 
the schools to proceed cautiously in m.aking changes. 
Ordinarily school issues grow out of a division in the board 
and a change in the control of the board may be effected 
in one or two years. The danger of embarrassment to 
the schools through the inability of the people to regulate 
school policies directed by a board of seven members 
each serving for seven years is therefore quite remote. 

The members of a board should not be chosen to 
represent a particular ward or section of a city. The 
services of the ablest and most cultured men in a city, 
those who have had the largest business experience, 
who possess a broad and sympathetic outlook upon life, 
and who have the judgment and discretion to feel the 
public pulse and determine the educational needs and 
sentiment of a city, should be placed on boards of educa- 
tion. This would not only be impossible if in the selec- 
tion of such members there were territorial restrictions, 
but such course would result in the selection of men of 
small caliber and men whose action in school affairs 
would not generally be independent. 



19 

The question has frequently arisen in recent years 
as to whether members of boards of education should 
be professional school men or lay citizens. The functions 
of a board of education are of a purely business character 
and should therefore be administered by men of business 
training and experience. A board of education is the 
legislative school body of a city. Its important function 
is to determine the broad policy on which the schools 
shall be managed. The board should select professional 
men to execute the policies which it has adopted. There 
must, of course, be discussions, mutual agreements and 
cooperation between those charged with the business 
management of the school affairs and those charged with 
the professional direction of the schools. Those charged 
with the educational supervision and direction of the 
schools must be given the greatest latitude and power 
of initiative possible. Neither the board nor individual 
members should interfere with the prerogatives of a 
superintendent or teacher. If members of a board are 
required to possess professional qualifications, such mem- 
bers v/ill inevitably obtrude their judgment and profes- 
sional opinions over the judgment and professional opin- 
ions of those who are officially charged with the profes- 
sional direction of the schools and there are bound to occur 
friction and embarrassments which vv^ill be disastrous to 
the wise management and efficiency of the schools. The 
influence of the lay citizen upon the public school system 
is, moreover, as essential to the vitality and strength of 
such system as the influence of the professional school 
man. To eliminate such lay influence would be nearly 
as destructive to efficiency as the elimination of the pro- 
fessional influence. Each of such influences under proper 
regulation is indispensable to the development of the 
highest degree of efficiency in school management. 

With the general trend of public opinion and legislative 
action toward small boards, it is only logical that the 
question of compensation should be raised. It is urged 
that with smaller boards, members are required to give 
more time to the proper performance of their duties and 
that they should not be requested to neglect their personal 
affairs to serve the city to such extent without adequate 
compensation. This reasoning is based on the erroneous 



20 

belief that a small board is required to give more time to 
the performance of its duties than a large board. A 
small governing board of any corporation will generally 
transact more business in a shorter period of time than 
a large board. If membership on a board of education 
carries with it a salary, the position will be sought by 
men for the emoluments which the office affords and not 
for the purpose of rendering a patriotic service to the 
municipality and the State. It is conceded that there 
are few cases where paid boards have operated satis- 
factorily and where strong men have been appointed 
to membership on such boards. Rochester is an example. 
The inevitable result, however, sooner or later will be 
that the professional office seeker will obtain membership 
upon the board and, when he does, he will often meet 
his obligations for the appointment by awarding such 
favors as his official authority will permit. If men are 
paid for this service, they should be required to give their 
whole time, or such portion of their time as may be equal 
to the compensation paid. Men of large business 
interests would not generally accept the position if they 
were required to give their whole time to its duties. 
Many men of abundant means, of liberal education, of 
extensive training in business affairs and of sound judg- 
ment would decline to serve in such capacity if a salary 
were attached to the office. It has been claimed that 
suitable men can not be obtained in large cities to serve 
on boards of education without compensation because 
of the demands made upon their time. There is no force 
to this argument. The time which men are required to 
devote to the duties of this office is not very great. When 
a board is properly organized, confines its work to its own 
functions and does not interfere or meddle with the duties 
of superintendents and teachers, its business may be 
transacted with promptness at weekly board meetings. 
The experience of the large cities of the whole country 
has been that the most representative citizens will cheer- 
fully serve in this capacity when they may do so on the 
ground that they are performing a duty they owe their 
city. A plan to provide paid boards would be destructive 
of all sound school administration and should be resisted 
to the utmost by every friend of the schools. 



21 



If professional qualifications were required and a salary 
were paid to members of a board of education, those 
employed in the professional management of the schools 
would thereby often be encouraged to seek membership 
on such board. It would frequently occur that those 
not in harmony with the professional direction of the 
schools would be the ones seeking membership on such 
boards. Their purpose in desiring such positions would 
be to embarrass officers responsible for the management 
of the educational side of the school system. Those con- 
nected with the professional direction of the schools who 
are not satisfied with the policies of their superior officers 
and unwilling cheerfully to follow their superior's direc- 
tion and who desire to effect a change therein which, in 
their judgment, w^ould increase the efficiency of the 
schools, should present their reasons for such changes 
to the board of education v/hich is the authority to pre- 
scribe general policies. 

The entire management of the finances of a school 
system should be under the control and direction of the 
board of education. This body has a better knowledge 
of the needs of the schools than the common council or 
the board of estimate and apportionment. The board 
of education should be able to plan its work in advance 
and to know exactly the amount of funds at its disposal 
for work thus contemplated. The tendency of recent 
legislation in this State and elsewhere is to provide a 
scheme by which there shall be raised annually a definite 
sum for the support of the public schools. In some 
cities, the amount is fixed on the basis of the assessed 
valuation of the city; in others the amount is a per capita 
appropriation based upon the number of pupils enrolled 
in the school system; in still other cities, the plan is a 
per capita appropriation based on the average daily 
attendance of pupils in the entire school system. The 
latter method appears to be the most desirable and will 
yield a sum less fluctuating than either of the other plans. 
The municipal authorities in issuing a tax levy for general 
municipal purposes should be required under the law to 
include therein a fixed per capita sum on the average 
attendance of pupils in the schools of the city. The 
amount per capita will vary in the several cities of the 



22 

State. A fixed sum will thus be provided sufficient to 
meet the contingent expenses of the school system. 

The question of providing sufficient funds to support 
a school system should not generally be left to the dis- 
cretion of a purely municipal body or board. The 
universal experience is that, where this policy is pursued 
in school administration, there v/ill be occasions when, 
in a spirit of general economy or of unusually large 
municipal expenditures, the amount of the approriation 
needed for the schools will be decreased in common with 
other appropriations and to the great harm and injury 
of the efficiency of the schools. It is sometimes urged 
that the common council or board of estimate and appor- 
tionment should be given the power to veto items in the 
school budget or to reduce the amount of such items 
on the ground that the city authorities are entitled to 
be heard on the question of such expenditures and in 
connection with other municipal expenditures, since the 
city is required to raise the amount by tax. There is 
force and sense in this contention. On the other hand 
it may be said that the board of education is the repre- 
sentative of the city and that the city is heard through 
and its interests protected by this board. This board 
has made a study of the educational needs of the city 
and is better prepared to determine the wisdom of 
expenditures for school purposes than the common 
council or the board of estimate and apportionment. 
It appears wise to give the municipal authorities an 
opportunity to express their judgment upon the advis- 
ability of educational appropriations but the final judg- 
ment thereon should rest with the board of education.^ 

Several charters contain a most excellent plan. The 
plan in the charters of the cities of Amsterdam and Oneida 
assures the schools proper financial aid and at the same 
time accords the municipal authorities the right to be 
heard upon appropriations for educational purposes. 

^ The criticism has been made that in New York City the members of the board 
of estimate and apportionment are elected by the people and that the action of such 
body should not be subject to modification by a body, such as the board of education, 
appointed by the mayor. This criticism does not,, however, apply to the cities where 
the members of the board of estimate and apportionment are not elected by the 
people. Neither does it apply to those cities where the members of the board of 
education are elected by the people. In all cities, there should be a definite fixed 
method by which a specific sum is required for the support of the schools. 



23 

In these cities, the board is required to prepare a budget 
specifying the amounts needed for the following purposes: 
(i) salaries of superintendents and teachers; (2) the 
maintenance of high schools; (3) repairs to school build- 
ings and grounds; (4) purchase and repair of school 
apparatus, furniture, books etc.; (5) maintenance of 
school library; (6) salaries of clerks, janitors, truant 
officers, and other contingent expenses. 

The board is required to present this statement to the 
mayor. If the mayor approves the statement, he must 
file it with the city clerk. The amount is then included 
in the regular tax budget of the city. The mayor can not 
veto any item relative to the salaries of the superintendent 
and teachers and the contingent expenses of the schools. 
The authority to fix these items in the budget rests solely 
with the board of education. If the mayor desires to 
veto any of the other items, he must return such vetoed 
items within two days, together with his reasons in 
writing, to the board of education. The board of educa- 
tion may then reconsider those items and, if approved 
by a two-thirds vote, they stand and are included in the 
budget. 

The New Rochelle plan is even better. In this city 
the preparation of the budget is similar to the plan in 
Amsterdam and Oneida but the budget is filed with the 
mayor and presented to the board of estimate and appor- 
tionment. If that body disapproves or decreases any 
item in the budget, the consideration of such item is 
again taken up by the board of education and, if approved 
by a two-thirds vote, must stand. 

This sum collected for the support of the schools should 
be credited to the board of education and paid out only 
upon the order of that body. There should be no division 
of responsibility between the board of education and the 
board of estimate and apportionment or common council 
in fixing the salaries of any of the employees of the public 
school system. The board of education, being especially 
charged by law to supervise and manage the schools and 
presumed to have given careful consideration to the work 
done in the schools, has a better knowledge of the services 
which the superintendents, supervisors or directors, 
teachers and janitors are rendering the city and the value 



H 

of such compensation than either the common council 
or the board of estimate and apportionment. Fixing 
the salaries of the employees of a school system is a purely 
business part of the administration of the schools and 
should be under the direction of the board of education, 
subject to such information relating thereto as the board 
may request from the superintendent. 

Provision should be made, and particularly in the 
growing cities, for the usual increase in school population. 
To meet these conditions, additions to school buildings 
and in some cities the erection of new buildings are 
necessary. Unusual repairs are often necessary and pro- 
vision should be made by which, on the recommendation 
of the board of education, the common council or board 
of estimate and apportionment shall be authorized to 
make appropriations to meet these extraordinary expend- 
itures in providing increased school facilities for the 
city. 

The tendency of legislation throughout the country is 
to place in the hands of boards of education the entire 
management and control of the improvement of school 
property, the designation of sites and the erection of 
new school buildings. The board of education is more 
familiar with the needs of the different schools and 
sections of the city and the necessity of additional educa- 
tional facilities than any other body in the city. There 
are eighteen cities in the country having a population 
above 300,000 and in all of these but four the entire 
responsibility of the purchase of sites, erection of new 
buildings, improvements to old buildings and the purchase 
of supplies and equipment are properly under the direct 
control of the board of education. 

A superintendent of schools should be chosen by the 
board of education for a definite period. Six years is 
suggested as a suitable term. Professional qualifications 
should be prescribed for this ofhce. These quahfications 
should include graduation from an approved college and 
adequate experience in teaching or school supervision. 
The accomplishm.ent of distinct educational achievements 
should be accepted in lieu of collegiate training. The 
superintendent should have the absolute direction of the 
pedagogical side of the school system. He should be 



25 

responsible for the contents of such courses of study as 
the board of education may authorize. His recommen- 
dation should be a prerequisite to the adoption or change 
of textbooks. All teachers and other subordinates should 
be under his general direction and responsible to him. 
Assistant superintendents, supervisors and directors of 
special work, teachers and janitors should be appointed 
by the board of education on the nomination of the 
superintendent. Any of these employees should be 
subject to suspension by the superintendent and together 
with the superintendent subject to removal by the board 
for cause. The Education Law ajffords proper protection 
to a teacher or superintendent who may be removed for 
insufficient cause, by appeal to the Commissioner of 
Education. The superintendent should be the chief 
executive officer of the board of education and of the 
city school system. 

Teachers should be appointed from eligible lists and in 
the order of their merit. All teachers should be required 
to hold certificates of the highest standards. Only those 
who hold the college graduate certificates, life state 
certificates, normal school diplomas, and training school 
certificates should be eligible to teach. The superin- 
tendent should have the power to name two examiners 
to be associated with him to conduct such examinations 
as may be necessary to prepare eligible lists. These 
examiners should be professional school men and should 
be paid for the services rendered. There are few cities 
having sufficient work to give permanent employment 
to such board. The eligible lists from which appointments 
are made should be upon examinations based upon the 
education, experience, efficiency and personal adaptation 
of the applicant to the work of teaching. The board 
of education should never be given power to determine 
the qualifications of teachers or to participate in any 
form in the procedure by which the eligible lists are 
created. It is contrary to every correct principle of civil 
service regulations for the contracting power to possess 
authority in any form over the determination of the 
qualifications of its appointees. 

A teacher's tenure should be permanent. Tenure 
should depend solely upon a teacher's conduct and effi- 



26 

ciency. Teachers should be subject to removal on 
charges and after full opportunity to be heard in their 
own behalf. Provision should be made for the retire- 
ment of teachers after years of service to the city and 
for physical and mental disability when the good of the 
schools requires it. Every teacher so retired should 
receive an annuity sufficient to provide the actual neces- 
sities of life in her declining years. 

No system of public education is complete which does 
not make adequate provision for the proper direction 
and protection of the health of the child. This implies 
more than the construction of buildings conforming to 
required standards of heating, lighting and ventilating 
and of giving instruction in hygiene. It means that 
the State must assum.e its share of the responsibility of 
determining the physical condition and needs of the child. 
School authorities should therefore be given the same 
power in relation to the employment of physicians, 
dentists and nurses for the professional medical and dental 
examination of all children in the public schools which 
they now have in the employmxcnt of teachers. The 
constitutional rights of parents must, of course, be 
respected in this regard but the supreme right of the child 
to receive proper medical treatment for physical defects 
which are obstacles to his proper physical and mental 
development and which are unobserved or neglected by 
parents but clearly discernible by qualified physicians 
should have the unqualified support of the State by 
proper legislation upon this subject. The proper care 
and direction of the health of the child further requires 
proper provision for playgrounds and for playrooms in 
all school buildings. 

If the principle that education is a State function is 
to be observed, if the schools are to be managed without 
reference to purely municipal affairs, if the powers of 
boards of education, superintendents and teachers are 
to be properly defined and their relation to one another 
correctly expressed and if the schools are to be main- 
tained in the interests of the people and to afford the 
highest degree of efficiency possible, then the following 
principles should be observed in the enactment of laws to 
regulate and govern the schools of our cities : 



27 

1 These laws should never be incorporated in city 
charters but should be included in the general Education 
Law. Three separate articles might be provided, one 
for each of the three classes of cities. 

2 There should be an absolute divorcement of the 
school affairs of the city from the other municipal and 
political activities of the city. 

3 There should be a clear line of demarcation between 
the business management of the schools and the direction 
of the professional work of the schools. 

4 There should be an unpaid board of education con- 
sisting of, say seven members, who are not experts in 
school work. The number for New York City may 
necessarily be larger. The term of office of these members 
might be seven years, one member being appointed 
annually. These members should be appointed by the 
mayor without confirmation, or should be elected at a 
general election held on a date specifically set for such 
purpose. This board should be in charge of the business 
management of the schools. 

5 Municipal authorities should be required to include 
in the tax budget annually a specified minimum amount 
for the maintenance of schools. The funds set apart 
for the schools should be under the absolute control of 
the board of education. 

6 The selection of sites, the preparation of plans for 
new buildings and the construction of such buildings, 
repairs and additions to buildings, should be under the 
control of the board of education. 

7 The professional management of the schools should 
be under the direction of the superintendent and his 
assistants. The assistants to the superintendent, super- 
visors and directors of special work, and all teachers and 
employees should be appointed by the board of education 
on the nomination of the superintendent. 

8 Teachers should be appointed from a list of eligible 
candidates in the order of their merit; should be remov- 
able on charges and should be retired on annuities. 

9 Provision should be made for the proper medical 
and dental examination of children. 

ID Am.ple playgrounds for and playrooms in all school 
buildings should be provided. Open-air schools and 



■ 28 

vacation schools should be established as a regular part 
of the public school system. State aid toward this work 
should be allotted on an equitable basis. 

The enactment of a general law embodying the prin- 
ciples set forth in this paper would advance the interest 
of public education more and would go further toward 
the elimination of the destructive influences of favoritism 
and of partisan politics in the schools than any other 
reform in school administration which could be adopted. 
Such action would also result in placing the management 
of the schools upon sound business principles and upon 
correct pedagogical standards. It would give every super- 
intendent, teacher and school officer the official freedom 
to do those things which would improve the schools, in- 
crease their efficiency and enable them to render a greater 
service to the people without fear of molestation or injury 
from authorities in no way responsible for the manage- 
m.ent and direction of school affairs. Furthermore it 
would give respect, dignity and independence to the 
position of member of a board of education and would 
attract to the membership of such boards men who are 
now unwilling to enter such service and who will bring 
business experience, skill and judgment of a high type 
to bear upon the general control of the schools. Are 
these objects worthy of accomplishment and are your 
interests in their achievement such that you are willing 
to give earnest, unselfish support to the proper solution 
of these questions ? If you are, then you must waive 
the nonessentials in the broad lines of sound school poli- 
cies and the traditions of local practice and must come 
together in a common understanding to support these 
general fundamental principles of school administration. 
If your efforts are an important element in the ultimate 
success of a movement for this reform, you will have 
rendered a vital service to the future generations of this 
Commonwealth. 



Wl 



38 73 5^fe 


















0^ ^-^^^^ 















^. 







A <. *^T;T* ,G^ ^5 'o . » - 'V ^ . *-^ 5 * G^ 'o 














■a/ »<^ 











* ^^ 



' O^ * o „ o ^. 












> 










.c^ 







'^ 0^ 



^^ .-. "V '" 




-^ 

..^^ Z.^^-. "^o,../ MiA^^ ^^..^^ ::^^\ "^-..Z 




'b V" 



0' 










'•••■ *^ ... ■^f 











vO 







<^. 



If^^ 









<J-' 











^°-^^. 




G" 



\^ 



>P^^K 



^ 




^;*' ^^^ "o -.■•■xv.:^. 




A 



A- 



lO- 




^^ .-. ^-^ 



.<&^ 




,-j^ 






° " " « <^x 



^ o 







^■^ 



■^' 



■ "r!" >^^"^ ^^^W^ o^^ 



•^ 



•d^ 



.0 




V ^^'^ '^^^^^C^^ 




,V 



\Tr-'ii, •^ -^^ . 



k'^- 



c° . 











^i?i?t 7 



N. MANCHESTER 

INDIANA 



,-9' 




"^vr^^^ « 







^^^ *^..^ 







^. *-..^' 



